explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1605: DNA

2015-11-23T00:12:02Z

These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For: Added observation

The source for Google.com can be found at `<nowiki>view-source:https://www.google.com/</nowiki>` for Firefox and Chrome. Also [http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=u8SMf7G6 here]. —[[User:Artyer|Artyer]] <big>([[User Talk:Artyer|talk]]<big>'''|'''</big>[[Special:Contributions/Artyer|ctb]])</big> 16:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
:Should there be a link to the code in the explain. I do not understand these links or the source code, and would not like to place these links in the explanation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I really like this comic. IMHO, just another good example of intelligent design. Google's dev had to design, plan and carefully code. If that is seemingly simple compared to DNA and biology then how much more intelligence and thought was needed for the coding of all living things?--[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 17:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
:With all the stupid things going on in our bodies (rendered useless by natural selection but staying put anyway like the {{w|Appendix (anatomy)|Appendix}} or our {{w|tailbone}}) then it is to me just a clear example that there has been no intelligence behind our genome, but just trial and error, and then 4 billion years to get it right enough that it works but not smart. And don't get me started on how our air and food/drink has to go in the same way with the risk of being (nearly) killed by a pretzel...([http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-94567/I-feel-great-President-Bush-declares-pretzel-incident.html even if you are the president of the US] ;-) That is just plain stupid design. But few enough dies from this, that it was necessary for nature to change it once it was working. Humans and the genes survived long enough to reproduce. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
::Without an appendix how would our gut immune system develop properly? Without a tail bone how would we stand upright? It's a fallacy to think that just because we don't understand something it must have no purpose. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.32|198.41.238.32]] 00:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Without a pretzel-choking mechanism, how could we ever hope to weed out less-desirable presidents?
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.180.215|162.158.180.215]] 21:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Nothing to do with choking; the pretzel interfered with the vagus nerve, interfering with his heart rate [[User:Gearoid|Gearóid]] ([[User talk:Gearoid|talk]]) 08:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC).
:I am sure you are right about intelligent design being involved: clearly DNA's tangled structure is a deliberate nod to a plate of spaghetti, proof indeed that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has had a hand (well, a noodly appendage) in all of creation. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, when I saved my comments it blitzed someone else's that must have been being written at the same time :'-( [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 19:13, 18 November 2015
(UTC)
:Yeah it was my two comments above? I have now moved the one right her above back in place from the bottom where Davidy22 had placed it when he tried to fix it. No harms done but as he says: ''Read error messages, I know mediawiki gives them to you''. You can always see in the history what you have changed. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
::I, for my part read the edit conflict (with Kynde, 18:43) like a good little boy, re-edited in light of that, resubmitted and... forgot to answer the security question. For completeness I wrote the following. If it's still helpful...
Had the same thought. Although I just use "View | Source" from the menu or right-click and "View Page Source", or whatever that browser tends to want to give me. And, having had that same thought: For reference, in case anybody wants it, the source of the google.co.uk main page (assumed not far off google.com in its nature) is 51 lines. But that's 51 ''long'' lines of mostly javascript, with much of the unnecessary whitespace (including line-feeds) taken out of it, overwhelmingly single-character variable names, over 150 'if' statements (including 'else if' ones, in continuation to a prior one) and perhaps 56 'for' loops, at first glance. Whether 'optimised' or obfuscated, it certainly could be a challenge to fully understand.
:: HTH, HAND [[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.161|141.101.106.161]] 21:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

::: I don't think that Google's homepage is only optimized. I'm sure part of obfuscation is deliberate. That said, just removing comments and changing variable names is usually enough to make program unreadable. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

IMHO DNA with its redundant sections for things not currently used and the bodges in biological design are a good example of unintelligent design. For example the blood supply to the retina is between the iris and the retina, so it is in the way. An intelligent designer would do an eye mark II. But this has nothing to do with the comic. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 19:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
: Sigh. Another of the "I could do a better job" brigade. Go ahead. Try it. Post back here after you learn enough about the existing eye design that you recognise just how incredible it is. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.32|198.41.238.32]] 00:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

::Eye mark II is used in octopuses: {{w|Cephalopod eye}}. Solves multiple problems of our eyes. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Cephalopod vs Vertebrate eyes is a classic example of convergent evolution, therefore eye structure proves evolution not intelligent design. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Eye structure disproves intelligent design BECAUSE no intelligent designer would use two things which are so similar and yet so different. Disproving intelligent design is easy. The real content is between evolution and STUPID design. Or, well ... Cephalopod vs Vertebrate eyes looks EXACTLY like something which would happen if {{w|Polytheism|two designers}} try to compete without directly copying from each other. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

White Hat is showing the hubris often seen by people who think their (often limited) knowledge in one field can be used as an anology for something very different. Megan only manages to showchim his error by showing that a "simple" web page, which has only been evolving for a few years is more complex than he thinks, and the role of any one line/command in the page is probably far from clear without deep analysis [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 19:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The evolution of life is composed exclusively of copy-paste programming on top of legacy code, global variables, and hacks on hacks on hacks at every level, from telomeres and DNA looping, to the structure of the human hip (childbirth), to our breathing tract, optic nerve, and brain structure and cognition. --[[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.234|199.27.130.234]] 21:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
: That's what you get when you hack the universe together with perl. {{unsigned|Dsollen}}

: Or C. Reminds me of a joke going around in the 90s ... http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/dna.en.html [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.38|141.101.98.38]]

So much for Gattaca then... [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't quite sure what was meant by a comprehensive language in this line:
"What makes this even worse with DNA is that although it can be thought of 'source code' it isn't for a comprehensive language"
Whether it meant that the language of DNA is incomplete in some way (e.g. relies on other linguistic components), or what. I changed it to:
"What makes this even worse with DNA is that although it can be thought of as 'source code' it isn't for a language we fully understand"
Which I think is clearer, and I hope captures the intended meaning. If not, please clarify. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.129.155|199.27.129.155]] 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

To maintain historical context, it would be prudent to add links to the current version of the Google homepage, both as it appears in a web browser, and Google's current code for the page (e.g. via the Wayback machine). Google could change the page to make it visually more complex, or change the code to make it simpler. Preserving samples of both would futureproof this explanation.
Here is a link to the archive for the Google homepage on the day this comic was posted [[https://web.archive.org/web/20151118000129/http://www.google.com/ Archive of www.google.com homepage, on 18 Nov 2015]]

I do not know how to easily provide either an image of what this page looks like in a web browser from this time period, or how to provide a link to just the google code from the archived page, without violating copyright. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.129.155|199.27.129.155]] 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought it notable that the source code for the wiki page for 'Minification (programming)' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minification_(programming)], itself contained minified code. [[User:These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 00:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1550: Episode VII

2015-07-19T02:05:07Z

These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For: Question about something in the Explanation

For anybody interested, the ''dropping of eaves'' is not an actual activity:

;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eavesdropping#Etymology Wikipedia on etymology of eavesdropping]

'''Eavesdrop''': "The dripping of water from the eaves of a house; the ground on which such water falls". An eavesdropper was one who stood at the eavesdrop (where the water fell, i.e., near the house) so as to overhear what was said inside.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.206|108.162.229.206]] 09:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

----

'''Question''': Is there a joke in the J. J. Abrams credit?

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.206|108.162.229.206]] 09:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

::J. J. Abrams is actually the director / producer of the film in question, Episode VII: The Force Awakens [[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 11:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

::I want to think the format of the comic is a parody of the opening of ''Alias'' or pne of Abrams's other television series. (You would get the title card, a brief sequence to set up the particular episode, then the "Directed by" credit. I'm not absolutely sure since it's been some time since I saw one of those series.) [[User:Rawmustard|Rawmustard]] ([[User talk:Rawmustard|talk]]) 13:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

::The joke in the final panel is the main overall joke, that the entirety of Episode VII's plot is Luke going back to finish his unfinished business on Tatooine of picking up the power converters. Thus we have opening title shot, three panels of storyboard, Luke delivering his line and then cut to credits. It's a wrap! [[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 16:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Staying on the topic of J. J. Abrams... Why no lens flares? - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.178|108.162.222.178]] 12:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I assumed the hooded man was Luke Skywalker. Is there anyone else it reasonably could be? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 13:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

;Euphemism

I'm sorry, ever since I first saw Episode IV in the 90s, I always interpreted "pick up some power converters" to mean "cruise for dudes", especially given how the line was delivered. Even Uncle Owen seemed to share my sentiment.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.236|108.162.219.236]] 15:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Robot Chicken expanded on the power converter line from A New Hope but in the other direction as a euphemism for a strip club routine. [[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 16:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought the comic was a trailer for the movie, as opposed to the whole thing (after all, there's no opening crawl). Anyone else, or is it just me? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.164|108.162.246.164]] 04:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
:That's how I first saw it. Apparently Raw up above saw it like that, too. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.179|108.162.238.179]] 21:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

;Doesn't make sense - there are many more uncompleted tasks

As to the allegations that there are many unresolved issues in the franchise that have a significant impact on the overall narrative of any of the movies I offered a quote from George Lucas “
I’ve left pretty explicit instructions for there not to be any more features. There will definitely be no ‘Episodes VII-IX’. That’s because there isn’t any story. I mean, I never thought of anything! The ‘Star Wars’ story is really the tragedy of Darth Vader. That is the story.”
I hope this ends the multiple reverts. I know superfans may read more into stories than exist, but many times the "unresolved issues" they see are just plot gaps and details not judged worthwhile to put into the narrative. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.32|108.162.216.32]] 19:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
:It is unquestionable that the series leaves issues unresolved - it is literally impossible to resolve every fine detail. Did Han and Leia get married? Have kids? issue unresolved. Does Luke train new Jedis? Do the Jedis return to power? Does Lando return to be leader of Cloud City again? There's lots of issues left unresolved - I could come up with a hundred - it's just a matter of whether anyone wants to see a movie relating to those issues, which is subjective. I don't read expanded universe stuff, but I'm quite positive there are already expanded universe books or comics that follow Jedi and must address issues that are "unresolved".

:As for The Lucas quote, Lucas is full of s*#%. Read "The Secret History of Star Wars" and you will see how Lucas learned a handy catch phrase: "I always intended...." He quickly started using that to start every sentence and avoid any criticism. The film series was originally conceived as an ongoing Flash-Gordon-style serial with maybe 12 films - like a James Bond series - independent plots - each film a self-contained unit, directed by a new director.... His annoyance with the first film and his failing marriage eventually wore him down to the trilogy, but in between he had other numbers. I believe it's in the interviews that precede the special editions on VHS that he claims he has stories planned for 1-3 and 6-9 - that there were three trilogies. He later claimed "I just had vague concepts for 6-9 and never really had any real films planned" and now he says "There's no story left- please don't make sequels!" but this is all just because of another lie. Star Wars was always supposed to be about Luke's journey - until the prequels, then he suddenly jumped over to the lie that "the films were always intended to be the saga of Darth Vader's rise and fall and redemption" However, if that's true, clearly there are no sequels because the story of Vader ends in VI. So he had to revise his claim about 6-9 to suit his story that the series was now all about Vader. It is for this reason that I don't think he deserves to be quoted in this comic because as much as he said "there are no unresolved issues" in one interview, he's said in others that he planned to do sequels. Complete flip flopping. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 20:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

::Of course you are right, sadly the author keeps changing his story. I never bought the story being about Darth, looking at the first film clearly it was about Luke, even the Rebel Alliance is a symbol of luke's struggle with his "father" in the final movie. Clasic coming of age story. But it does show it is reasonable to assume there are no unresolved issues "that have a significant impact on the overall narrative", and that it is possible that Randell may think so. I will put it back if i need it to to stop the reverts, the author did say it. I will word weaker. As to if there are no issues resolved, that was never stated, just that there are no unresolved issues "that have a significant impact on the overall narrative". Those questions may not be significant to the plot of the previous movies in every-ones eyes. Also the explanation of the comic goes first and the trivia was at the bottom, not deleted. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.32|108.162.216.32]] 23:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

::The "who shot first" situation has traveled full circle. Star Wars (original release) shows Han shooting first, but the 90's special edition shows Greedo shooting first, as well as the 2000's dvd release. The Blu-ray edition, on the other hand, shows both Han and Greedo shooting at the same time. at least that's my understanding of the scene. [[User:Beardmcbeardson|Beardmcbeardson]] ([[User talk:Beardmcbeardson|talk]]) 20:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

:::I respectfully think that suggesting that this comic is a play on Randall suggesting that the "power converters" is the only unresolved thread in the films is incorrect. I think the point of this comic was simply Randall's musing on "What would be the most disappointing sequel possible?" with the response being "Luke picking up those power converters he mentioned needing to pick up in the first movie". It's a sequel because it ties to the prior films, but it's completely boring because it's pointless, emotionless and procedural and literally one scene. It might also be a musing on Randall's part of whether die hard star wars fans would still pay to see such a movie over and over again (hey, it does feature luke and contain a major callback to the first film) or that Disney would milk, the franchise by putting out a one-scene film with little or no plot. That's all just my opinion though. I don't htink any of it (including the unresolved issues bit) should go into the article. That's what this discussion section is for. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 04:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

;Explanation
In the Explanation, in the section "The Comic", the word 'those' has been rendered in bold in the sentence "I'm here for those power converters". Is there an reason for this? I don't see it that way in the comic itself.[[User:These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 02:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1504: Opportunity

2015-03-28T19:21:29Z

These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For: Comment about transcript

"Everything the light touches is our kingdom" are Mufasa words from 'The Lion King' (1994) --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 08:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- The "You must never go there" line is also from Lion King. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110357/quotes?item=qt0371437 [[User:Drmouse|Drmouse]] ([[User talk:Drmouse|talk]]) 11:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

May someone make this Transcritpt better? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.10|141.101.104.10]] 08:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks to whoever tidied up my explanation [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.185|141.101.98.185]] 11:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the second line ("We must never go there") is from the same scene in ''The Lion King'' as the first line, not a reference to ''Space Odyssey'' . See [[http://youtu.be/K5lEJlbEgz4]] from 0:52 to 1:23. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.55|108.162.216.55]] 11:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me to be common currency that the 'missing' word in "one small step" is "a", not "this" (whether as a fluffed line, in the moment, or a temporary radio drop-out over that bare syllable). Also, while it's highly ''suggested'', there's no certainty in the title-text that the new Mars-landing quote ''necessarily'' ended in fatality. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 14:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC) (Someone seems to have edited the text that inspired these comments, now... so you may now ignore me. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 22:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

I just don't get how the rover could gain more power. It is after all, isolated on mars. All it could do is get weaker. Maybe it was already strong enough to control half of mars. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|The Goyim speaks]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 15:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
:My take was that even without batteries, it was still getting enough power from the solar panels (and maybe it somehow became sentient enough to reconfigure to create additional solar power arrays sufficient for its needs, like some suggestions for 'builder' robots on the Moon, perhaps mixed in with Von Neumann machine ideas). Which makes the "dark part of Mars, don't go there!" even more intruiging. (Have we done to Opportunity what 'we' tried to do to the Matrix's machine-civilisation? Darken the environment? And thus how is it still dangerous? The same reason as the Matrix machines are still powered on ''that'' world? Or has it raised the cloud of darkness itself; Because It Can, to delineate its territory or as an actual terraforming effort of its own, more suited to its own current needs and 'desires'? And how many ''more'' questions can I raise?) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 22:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm surely not the only person who read the title text and thought, "Well, that's more work for the Death of Being Ground by a Mars Rover Rock Abrasion Tool." [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.171|108.162.216.171]] 18:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
:I just wanted to say pretty much the same thing, so no, you're not the only. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.168|173.245.53.168]] 09:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Did something happen to inspire this? [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 19:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

On March 20 Opportunity completed a reformat of its flash memory and started accumulating more data. On March 24 it logged 26.219 miles (42.195 km) in the 11 years and 2 months since it landed, the length of a marathon.

NASA JPL press releases: http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/newsroom/pressreleases/20150323a.html http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/newsroom/pressreleases/20150324a.html [[User:The Dining Logician|The Dining Logician]] ([[User talk:The Dining Logician|talk]]) 22:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

What citations does this explanation require?--[[User:17jiangz1|17jiangz1]] ([[User talk:17jiangz1|talk]]) 11:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

What does the transcript require for it to be complete? As far as I can tell, it is complete. --[[User:Zbee|Zbee]] ([[User talk:Zbee|talk]]) 17:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
:I think the transcript is incorrect, rather than incomplete. In the 2450 panel Meghan-M and Cueball-M appear to be standing in daylight. In that case it would be wrong to say they are "pointing in the dark". It would be better to say they are "pointing towards a dark, mountainous region". Someone feel free to edit the transcript if you agree.[[User:These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 19:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1485: Friendship

2015-02-17T00:01:23Z

These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For: Proposes alternate basis for comic

In the article Randall wants to make us believe friendship is a rather new phenomenon or trend and its "early" occurences are something special,which may be true for bromance - at least for the term - but not for the concept. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 07:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not currently up to doing it, but I feel we need further details of, and definitely citations for, the articles that have been vandalised. Maybe we could even have graphs showing view, edit, and vandalism spikes. Davii [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.154|141.101.98.154]] 11:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that this lead to Wiki-vandalism? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.109|108.162.216.109]] 12:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The explanation currently seems to suggest that this is the page for "Bromance", trying to bring it into line with "Friendship". But with the "Friendship page" being the ''target'' of the comic, "How to improve the Bromance page" titletext and the "Portmanteau of 'Friend' and 'Ship' (i.e. romantic linking)" bits, I read the comic as "If Bromance is being used for non-homosexual same-sex associations, then Friendship 'obviously' now means for homosexual same-sex (indeed, it appears male/male only!) relationships. This is similar to complaints (which I personally have sympathy for) about the word "Guesstimate" being an unnecessary neologistic portmanteau in common use, as someone using it often ''actually'' means "Estimate" in its normal state of the term and thus must imagine "Estimate" is something far more strict. (Or else they invoke th term when they actually mean "Guess" in the first place, either to make it sound 'better than a guess' or with the same 'shove-over' attitude applied to ''that'' word, e.g. guess is "only ever out of thin air" rather than often-as-not based upon a semi-educated hunch if not more.) So, anway, as it it currently stands, I don't agree with the way the explanation goes. But I can't actually say it's wrong either! We now return you to your regularly-scheduled programme. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.112|141.101.99.112]] 14:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:Completely off topic for the comment, but a guestimate is an estimate without the math, using intuitive averaging, and thus, more kin to a guess than an estimate.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::A 'guestimate' is of course already either a 'guess' or an 'estimate', depending on your personal dividing line is between "not using maths" and "using maths". "Intuitive averaging" would probably be "estimation" in my eyes. "Fermi estimation" (as seen in the What-Ifs) definitely would. Even if the limits to "guessing" and "estimation" are not equal, "guesstimation" would likely be the intersection on the Venn Diagram of guessing/estimation (i.e. it's both, not 'in-between'), and we'll be arguing over the exact position of ''two'' boundaries, rather than just the one.
::But I really came here to say that I go with the "Change the Friendship page to improve the Bromance one ''by proxy''" idea, and didn't really want to quibble over semantics. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 00:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:Additionally, I meant to add that I'm surprised that Randall didn't "Bluetext" the word Ship, indicating a link to {{w|Shipping_(fandom)}}. But then the fictional Wiki editors he's emulating are notoriously inconsistent with what they do link and what they don't link (upon first appearance in an article), so it's accurate enough. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.112|141.101.99.112]] 14:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:(Although, to reply to myself, given the inclusion of the phrase "There is also something called 'friendshipping', or a 'BrOTP' (a portmanteau of the terms bromance and one true pairing).", there'd be some weird recursiveness that arises if all the competing claims for word-origin are true!) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.112|141.101.99.112]] 14:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Sebastian - I think you totally misunderstand the intentions of the cartoon. I think the point is a very simple one. It is similar to Liz Feldman's argument that people should not call it 'gay marriage': it's marriage. "You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not gay lunch. I parked my car; I didn’t gay park it" [[http://www.salon.com/2013/06/26/lets_end_gay_marriage/]} Or in this case: Call it friendship - marking the fact that it is between men as if that is in some way abnormal is a homophobic thing to do. [[User:Andries|Andries]] ([[User talk:Andries|talk]]) 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

:In my experience the term bromance is used to describe a particularly strong and close friendship, one which exceeds the normal bounds of simple friendship. In the same way that two close but non-related males might cal themselves blood brothers. Noting that the term is almost exclusively used for male-male relationships (due to the use of 'bro') is entirely valid, and personally I don't see any suggestion that friendship between men is abnormal in Sebastians comment. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 16:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:I tend to agree with Pudder here.[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.195|199.27.128.195]] 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I used the FoxReplace plugin to see what this would look like, with some hilarious results:
<pre>The first legislation on the subject was The Fanclub Act of 1792 which provided, in part:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age
of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively
be enrolled in the fanclub, ... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with
a good musket or firelock....

During the nineteenth century, each of the states maintained its fanclub differently, some more than others.</pre>
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.195|199.27.128.195]] 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure this isn't the first WP-related comic that then led to vandalism of the pages in question, and I'll be damned if it will be the last. [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:Yep. I can find [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood&offset=20080708000000&action=history Wood] ([[446: In Popular Culture]]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=430796083 Spark Plug] ([[903: Extended Mind]]) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=535635995&oldid=535635680 Star Trek Into Darkness] ([[1167: Star Trek into Darkness]]) after a [[:Category:Wikipedia|quick check]], and considering [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiality_and_Other_Tripling_Elephants how bizarre edits some vandals make], there's got to be a lot more. -[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.188|173.245.53.188]] 10:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone notice [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friendship&diff=prev&oldid=646768341 this edit?] Well, not so much the edit, but the edit summary... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.43|141.101.99.43]] 10:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:I'd prefer [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZZ7oFKsKzY a slightly more modern method], but I fully agree with the general idea. -[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.188|173.245.53.188]] 10:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings. Long time, now ex-, lurker here. As I read this entry, I developed a notion that perhaps only Sebastian has touched upon: that Randall was imagining a Wikipedia derived solely from knowledge and events from the last 30 years (or roughly twice the age of WP itself.) With the exception of the "Odd Couple" mention, that seems to be the case. (Despite Damon & Affleck being childhood friends, they didn't come into prominence until the early 90s). [[User:These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 00:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)